The authors gratefully acknowledge the friendship, support, and cooperation of the residents of Superior. We would like to express special gratitude to the following:
Mayor Rick Disney, Rodney Rogers, Sandra Foote, Trenton Morris, Craig Hale, Levi Gunn, and Darrell Brandt.
Chairperson Kim Young, Vice Chairperson Carl Suchsland, Theresa Erickson, Emily Kirchhoff, Logan Christiancy, Angela Henderson, Jim Mitchell, and Calvin Hayes.
City Administrator Andrew Brittenham, City Attorney John Hodge, and City Clerk Brenda Corman.
Per Nebraska Revised Statutes (NRS) 19-901(1), municipal governments in Nebraska are granted the authority to regulate land use within their jurisdiction:
For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city council of a city of the first class or city of the second class or the village board of trustees of a village may adopt zoning regulations which regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.
The Superior Plan is organized into chapters based upon the guidance and requirements listed within NRS 19-903:
Per NRS 17-1001 (1), the geographical area covered by the City of Superior Comprehensive Plan includes all land within a one-mile area encompassing the city, “the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city shall consist of the unincorporated area one mile beyond and adjacent to its corporate boundaries.”
Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction displays Superior’s corporate boundary and zoning jurisdiction, which includes all lands within the City of Superior and its One-Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Superior’s land use policies govern all lands within the city as well as the ETJ.1
Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The existing land use (ELU) map provides a visual representation of how land in Superior is being used. It is a snapshot of the current state of the city’s existing land use patterns and helps with the decision-making processes related to land development, zoning regulation, and infrastructure funding.
Map 2.1: Superior Existing Land Use categorizes different areas – typically parcels of land – based on their primary uses today. This map serves as a baseline for inventorying characteristics of Superior that the community hopes to maintain, as well as what the community hopes to change in the next decade. It assists with identifying areas of change or potential growth, as well as with making informed decisions about future development and zoning regulations.2
Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of land in Superior by land use category. There are six categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, exempt, and state centrally assessed. Within city limits, commercial and residential uses make up three quarters of all land area, while exempt makes up another 15 percent. Agricultural land just under seven percent, while industrial and state centrally assessed land make up the remainder.
Table 2.1: Existing Land Use - Within Superior City Limits
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 38 | 74.44 | 6.74% |
| Commercial | 197 | 364.42 | 33.02% |
| Industrial | 3 | 25.01 | 2.27% |
| Residential | 1099 | 468.62 | 42.47% |
| Exempt | 122 | 168.91 | 15.31% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 3.77 | 0.19% |
Table 2.2 shows the land use outside of city limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Here, the vast majority of land use is agricultural. While residents and landowners living here do not elect city officials or pay property tax to the city, their lands are nonetheless important to the Superior’s future growth for several reasons:
Table 2.2: Existing Land Use - Within Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 190 | 6137.97 | 77.56% |
| Commercial | 198 | 455.42 | 5.75% |
| Industrial | 7 | 108.81 | 1.37% |
| Residential | 1103 | 474.78 | 6.00% |
| Exempt | 176 | 730.45 | 9.22% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 6.79 | 0.09% |
In this chapter, we document the condition, status, and needs for housing in Superior. Drawing on a variety of data from the Nuckolls County Property Assessor, various government agencies, and original surveys of Superior residents, we show that Superior has a long-term trend of population decline and housing structures in need of improvement.
The status and condition of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.1 shows how the assessor has rated these parcels in Superior:
Table 3.1: Superior Residential Land Use Conditions
| Condition | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worn-Out | 53 | 5.83% | 54.33% |
| Worn-Out – Badly Worn | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
| Badly Worn | 123 | 13.53% | 12.00% |
| Badly Worn – Average | 109 | 11.99% | 9.08% |
| Average | 473 | 52.04% | 54.32% |
| Average – Good | 69 | 7.59% | 8.59% |
| Good | 78 | 8.58% | 9.71% |
| Good – Very Good | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Very Good | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
Superior residents have expressed frustration with the quality of residential neighborhoods. In a 2025 survey, they expressed mixed satisfaction with vacated and dilapidated houses in their neighborhood, but strong negative sentiment with occupied nuisance properties and neighborhood overall appearances. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
One priority for policymakers is to encourage the redevelopment or demolition of such properties to improve community appearance. In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents indicated that “beautification should be a priority for the City of Superior.” 86 percent of respondents supported “ongoing demolition of uninhabitable homes”, and 80 percent supported “enforcing nuisance and other property maintenance codes for all properties.” Finally, 54 percent supported “establishing additional standards to improve the exterior appearance of buildings and properties along the city’s busiest streets,” perhaps recognizing that the beautification of Superior affects not only residents but also businesses and visitors.
Superior residents also described which features of neglected properties they consider problematic. Of six categories – abandoned vehicles, broken windows, yard debris, overgrown landscaping, peeling paint, and vacant homes – all six had at least a third described as “definitely a problem”, while just about half of respondents characterized each as “sometimes a problem.” Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
The ages of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.2 shows the age distribution of structures in Superior.
Table 3.2
| Era Built | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before 1900 | 32 | 3.50% | 2.47% |
| 1900-1920 | 334 | 36.54% | 30.84% |
| 1920-1940 | 200 | 21.88% | 22.34% |
| 1940-1960 | 141 | 15.42% | 10.52% |
| 1960-1980 | 139 | 15.21% | 19.58% |
| 1980-2000 | 40 | 4.38% | 5.86% |
| 20000 or later | 28 | 3.01% | 8.42% |
Figure 3.3 shows how Superior’s population has changed over the last century. The city population peaked in the 1940s before beginning to steadily decline to about 1,800 residents today. The decline was most pronounced in the 1990s.